Will Creationists Admit They Are Wrong and Apologise?

[notasheep]

Creationists are a minority group of Christians who refuse to accept that the latest findings from science show that Genesis is mythical. Note, that I say mythical, not untrue.

There are two main barriers for this group of Christians.

1. Poor Theology
For some reason, Creationists believe that entire bible must be taken literally. This is a curious affair when clearly no believer, even Creationists, would take the entire bible literally. Certain verses and passages must be interpreted in the right way, or else we would request women not to go to church when they are having their period and only hold service on Saturday, the real Sabbath day. There are those of us who have jobs on Sundays. It is therefore baffling why the whole of Genesis must be taken literally. What is the reasoning for this? There is none.

What is obvious to other Christians and non-believers but not obvious to Creationists: The bible must be interpreted correctly and seen in the right context, and this means that often, it should not be read literally. Some egs. Mounth Sinai is no great mountain but a hill. Don't use a sling and stones against a guy with a machine gun.

2. Blind Leading the Blind

Those who are leading the Creationism charge are very poorly qualified in science, if they even hold any qualifications in science at all. Let me give an example:

Ken Ham posesses a very average degree from a very average Australian university. There is no easy way to put this, he didn't do very well in school. The guy certainly doesn't have Honours, no Masters and no Phd. It is worthwhile for me to repeat: an ordinary science degree. He is far from what one would consider a professional scientist. Phd students start out as lab assistants, just to give those who follow him an idea on how unqualified he is as a scientist.

And here's what even funnier, he never went to any bible college - no degree or qualifications in theology and and has never pastored a church.

But yet, answersingenesis appeals to some Christians - those who are willing to take the views of one who is not only poorly qualified in science but also in theology.

Just about all Christians who are professional scientists and are trained in theology have:

a) rejected creationism
b) understand that Genesis is a myth because evidence shows things like the great flood did not happen.

My question is this: Why take my view or Ken Ham's view? Why don't you listen to the real experts? And the real experts includes prominent scholars from the Anglican and Catholic churches who accept Genesis as mythical and prominent scientists like those on biologos. Why would you chooose to take the view of a chap with poor qualifications in science instead of this gentleman:

Dr. Francis Collins is a physician and geneticist known for spearheading the Human Genome Project and for his landmark discoveries of disease genes. With Collins at the helm, the Human Genome Project produced a finished sequence of human DNA in 2003. He then used this new data to help create powerful tools and strategies to advance biological knowledge about humans and improve their health. Along with his research, Collins has also stressed the importance of considering the ethical and legal issues surrounding genetics.

I rest my case.

[Canuckster1127]

Where to start?

We're not answersingenesis. Even a minimun amount of effort on your part examining the main board of this site would have provided you a clue that we're not young earth creationist, but primarily old earth creationists.

Dr. Collins is a theistic evolutionist, which is in fact a form of creationism. Not all creationists are Young Earth Creationists.

I actually share many of your opinions of Ken Ham. Again, about 30 seconds of effort wouls have alerted you to where you're posting.

Literal acceptance of Genesis is not a choice between Young Earth Creationistic literalism or metaphoric mythology. That's what is known as a false dilemma; anyone with a minimum of training in logic and philosophy let alone theology would know that.

So, may I suggest respectfully that you familiarize yourself with our site, our board purpose and our discussion guidelines and then maybe introduce yourself and get to know where you're posting before taking the tone and attitude that you presume here and start with some discussions before launching into a monologue?

Welcome and I hope we progress a little better than this initial introduction.

blessings,

bart

[Seraph]

I think your post seems mostly directed at Young Earth Creationists, going off the part where you talk about Ken Ham. I don't think many people at a mostly Old Earth Creationist site are going to agree with Ken Ham anyway. Maybe the thread title should be changed to "Will YEC's Admit They Are Wrong and Apologize?"

But as for whether the Bible should be taken literally, wouldn't it be dishonest to cherry pick which parts should be taken literally and which parts aren't? Most Christians believe the Bible should be taken literally, but differ on their interpretations of how the bible should be read literally. Other than that, there are several reasons why Christians don't observe the sabbath or remain underneath many of the laws of the Old Testament.

[RickD]

Creationists are a minority group of Christians who refuse to accept that the latest findings from science show that Genesis is mythical. Note, that I say mythical, not untrue.

Before I respond to your post, please help me understand your opening 2 sentences. Doesn't mythical mean untrue?

[DannyM]

notasheep,

I'm a creationist. An old earth creationist. You're a Christian, I gather, and you don't believe in creation. Before I say anything I may regret, could you please explain how this works? What created the heavens and the earth, i.e. everything?

Danny

[joejmz]

Welcome to the site notasheep.

When you say mythical which definition of "myth" are you considering? Every definition I have found indicates a story that is fictitious, at best an innocent attempt to explain something otherwise not explainable by the one relating the story, at worst an actual attempt to deceive.

Either way, you seem to be saying that at least the beginning of Genesis, along with some psalms, portions of Job, and some of what Jesus said are all lies, maybe little white lies, but lies nonetheless.

As others have already pointed out, not all Creationists are Young Earth Creatonists. The Bible is to be taken literally but it is not a scientific treatise. A reader has to understand that and account for it as they study it. For example, Alfred, Lord Tennyson's "Charge of the Light Brigade" recounts an actual event, the charge really happened, and the poem is based on accounts of the event. But the poem is not intended to be a critical treatise on the event. Genesis 1 assures that God created the universe, recounts how He prepared the Earth to be habitable, and the sequence in which life forms were created to populate the planet, ending with the creation of the first humans.

[PaulSacramento]

I am a creationalist, I believe that God created the universe.
I believe the the process we call "evolution" was one of the methods that he used.
Like Dr.Collins and others, I am a "theistic evolutionist" but that still makes me a creationalist.

[neo-x]

Creationists are a minority group of Christians who refuse to accept that the latest findings from science show that Genesis is mythical. Note, that I say mythical, not untrue.

I do not think it is any body's place to decide who is wrong or right (unless it is painfully obvious). my own understanding puts me around the old earth creationists and gap creationists. But i do not see any reason to blame someone else for being wrong and make them apologize. science doesn't have proof of what you say. all it has are several models to explain creation as any one would have to hold true.

[FearlessLlearsy]

One must remember that no matter what P.h.d a person may have, that person still remains a human- who makes mistakes. As far as Science, it is a beautiful thing. However, one must remember that science is studied and practiced by humans- who make mistakes. The point is, not because some fancy white coats people say something, it necessarily is true. On the whole, your post is not very straightforward, or logical, because you are committing 3 fallicies. 1. Fallacy of Chronological snobbery, 2. the fallacy of Ad populum, and 3.the fallicy of Ipse Dixit. Personally, i would suggest that you read the book of Genesis again, because so often good willing Christians come up with distorted conclusions of the Bible because of a lack of knowledge on the Scripture. But then again, if you say that Genesis is a Myth, then what is the point of being a Christian?

[zoegirl]

It's always interesting to hear people accuse scientists of being some of the most fallible creatures on the planet and yet somehow forget that they themselves are part of this fallible race. Does it occur to you that you could be just as wrong in your interpretation of scripture as you are accusing them on their interpretation of the creation?

I do get annoyed, I'll be honest, at how easily people dismiss a person's hard work. Years of education, many many classes and hours of study and somehow this is all meaningless and THEIR LACK of an education and a mere handful of books somehow validates their criticism.

Even if I thought someone was wrong on a particular subject, their years of study deserve respect, they deserve respect and they deserve common civility. Having worked with them, having been in class with them, I know some of what they have had to deal with. While they certainly can be obnoxious, sadly, Christians are not innocent in this fight and can do much to damage the testimony fro Christ.

[FearlessLlearsy]

I agree with you. Often, i find myself very fallible as scientists are for we are all humans after all

Does it occur to you that you could be just as wrong in your interpretation of scripture as you are accusing them on their interpretation of the creation?

Yes, it crosses my mind all the time indeed. As a matter of fact, i do find myself wrong in many situations- we all are at a certain point. The point was not to undermine any person's hard great work (excuse me) if it came out that way. I just wanted to point out that not because they studied and worked hard for years are they right. Oh, and believe me, this message goes for me as well.

[zoegirl]

My apologies, that was a stronger post than I needed to write. I should have read through your posts more because I was attributing a stronger bias to you than you have.

[mandelduke]

The scientist that I listen to believe in the bible, they believe in Genesis. And there are many of them. “For the others” Jeremiah 8:9 The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?

[DannyM]

My apologies, that was a stronger post than I needed to write. I should have read through your posts more because I was attributing a stronger bias to you than you have.

There's my sister, dignified and magnanimous all the way through!

A thought on interpretation, Zoe. The trouble with sola scriptura is that we are all interpretors now. Whereas Roman Catholisism has the 'infallible Pope' to interpret - by far the more ludicrous position, by the way - all other Christians are basically left to their own devices with regards to interpretation. So, while honest and liberating, we are also left in a bit of a quandary. So we should be extra diligent when reading scripture. It's a toughy, don't you think?

[Byblos]

The trouble with sola scriptura is that we are all interpretors now.

Whereas Roman Catholisism has the 'infallible Pope' to interpret - by far the more ludicrous position, by the way -

So multiple and often contradictory interpretations are less ludicrous than a consistent one? Step back and imagine for a split-second if you could that the Catholic Church IS who she claims to be. How would that change your position vis a vis infallibility?